Challenge of Challenges: vote for the best shot of 2013

It's that time again - to showcase the talent and imagination shown by our Challenge hosts and entrants, we're once again running a 'Challenge of Challenges,' to find the dpreview.com Picture of the Year for 2013 (yes, it's a bit late, but we ran out of days before the holidays).

As always, we've been amazed by the range of images uploaded to our challenges over the course of the year, and we've whittled more than 1000 challenge winners down to a more manageable 25 - selected by the dpreview editorial team. We're also trying out a completely new voting interface for the first time, and we'd love your feedback.

Comments

Well how can a shortlist of about 1000 photos best be achieved ? One way would have been to publish , for 10 weeks, each week a catalog of 100 photos, all winners of challenges, and let the voters choose 10 top shots each week. Then after two and a half months publish the 100 top photos, and ask the voters again to choose, but now only the top five would count , and we'd have a fifth to first rank. This would have had the advantage of a large dispersion and a distribution of votes based on a vast body of voters, thus counteracting sandbagging and possible vote rigging, and delivering the DPR Staff from the necessity of claiming their prerogative . Of course, nothing speaks against a parallel internal vote by the DPR staff, a so-called "Editor's Choice" .

..on a different point : maybe you should think of placing the challenge of challenges somewhere more prominent, as it might get under the radar in the flood of articles .. just a thought.(I have also posted this in the related thread in the challenges forum)

I notice that a considerable number of these critics of the selected photos have NEVER entered any challenges, not participated in any way. Perhaps if they are such crack-shot photographers themselves, then they should show the rest of us mere mortals how it should be done!

Simon,I know I am repeating someone's (if not many) voices here, but:> Would have liked to see voting upon categories: nature, daylife, sports, travel, portrait, fine art photography, architecture and the like.> I like the voting system based upon first, second, third 'positions'. So here, the points (stars) are redundant if not pointless. > Regardless of the number of entries, 25 or 100, I still would like to have 10 choices at least for each category. In all, If only six entries merit my choice leaving four as empty, so be it.> And yes, most definitely, one should be able to click on the finalist photo and get a view of its full resolution as submitted.> I noticed and liked very much the fact that some entries although were summited with artifices like borders, marks and the like, these were eliminated, so the photos masterfully stand on their own without the support of these 'decorations'. (To be continued).

Cropping is manipulating the reality. Framing is manipulating the reality. Exposure is manipulating the reality. Wide angle is manipulating the reality. Telephoto is manipulating the reality. Putting make-up on a model is manipulating the reality. Controlling depth of field is is manipulating the reality. A lens that vignettes is manipulating the reality. The choice of colour or black and white is manipulating the reality.

I am always puzzled by photographers who are so arbitrary about which manipulations are acceptable and which ones are not. No photograph is a scene. No photograph is the reality. The idea that it is unmediated somehow is just plain bizarre.

But if you add to or subtract from what was there, for me you have crossed the line into photo-illustration.

I guess my view of photography is very conservative. Most of these images seem altered and contrived through the use of image enhancement. The changes aren't subtle and the results look too manipulated. I wonder if this reveals that the technique and skill in taking the picture has been supplanted by the shooters ability to manipulate the image into somersetting other than a photograph?

As a photographer for some time, I don't think it represents the supplanting you mention; photography at all points in its history simply evolves to make use of emerging tools. That is not to say that I see merit in all applications of the tools.

I totally agree with b craw. Many of those shots, if not most, are not staged, with good composition, angle, and I can see they use proper camera setting (just by seeing the results). Some has minor enhancements in level-curve-saturation, some has more enhancements. We could argue that there are other challenge winners that are more to our likings, but selecting more than 1000 to 25 is a tough task. Best way to improve next year's best of the best challenge is, for each of us to shoot more, participate more in the challenges and vote more.

I wouldn't say "most" but some are definitely altered/manipulated beyond basic PP. However, if they didn't violate the rules of the challenge they won shouldn't they be allowed? "If" they violated the rules the Host should have DQ'd them.The DP review panel liked them so it's too late. Maybe next time there is a "challenge of challenges" they will consider not voting for overly manipulated images. As always, It's all subjective.

I think this is a side effect of the rating system that is used in the challenges. Photos with a lot of vision, creativity and spontaneity tend to be controversal (people either love or hate them). With the rating system, it's hard for an extremely creative photo to beat out a technically perfect and beautiful cliche. If the challenges used a "pick your favorite" voting system, the creative photos would start to beat the cliches more often.

All great photos. But only a few I find to be worthy candidates. I don't like where Photoshopping (or Lightrooming) is taking photography. The landscape photos seem to be in search of tricks instead of content. Did expect more - we see these photos all time everywhere.

Perhaps we have different ideas of what constitutes a narrative image. Does the woman pushing a cart with child, amid all the debris, not strike you as telling a story? Or the man within the church illuminated by concentrated light coming through the window?

I voted...All images presented are great!But... I suggest that there should be categories like Documentary, Landscape, Macro, Nature, Portrait, etc... When I was selecting and judging those beautiful images, I feel like I'm comparing with apples with oranges and with strawberries...Great voting system, by the way... =)

There were better shots not entered in the 25 you choose. The 25 you choose were a poor choice and I feel bad you dropped the ball on so many good shots that should of been included. At least give us 100 shots to choose from or stop doing contest if you cannot do them right. Really sad I was not able to vote on the great photography that I saw. Anyone else feel this about the choice we were given?

Beautiful new voting interface, DPR. I know we give you some flack sometimes, but I know plenty of us do appreciate the ongoing efforts you guys are making to keep upping the "awesome" factor around here....At least those of us who aren't petrified of change.

In "best of" circumstance my thinking always arrives at best according to what criteria. Maybe this is just the teacher in me pecking at the insides of my head. I'm fine with assessment of personal preference (whatever defines such preference) and voting accordingly. But this does run the risk of conflating quality (given a context) and popularity. I have no gripe with the popular per se, but quality accessed in a vacuum i.e. without criteria, tends to those images which reward visually very quickly, or demonstrate clear technical prowess. Often marginalized are works which build appeal to the viewer slower, often very nuanced visually or demanding more sophisticated conceptual consideration.

But, all this aside, I voted. But, I did so a bit conflicted, feeling that we are picking between apples and oranges.

Can't understand people complaining about post-processing. We used to have these things called darkrooms you see, and hard and soft papers, and burning and dodging. All five of the pictures I chose may have been helped by diligent post-processing of tone and colour but none has had stuff ADDED that was not there. And that's my guideline.

Some of you talk as if the only justified photo is an unmediated snapshot. It ain't.

I agree entirely. If processing was all it took to suceed then these shots would all be point-and-shoot or iPhone images that had been worked up with editing software. The photographer still had to see something special and compose the shot, usually with the end result in mind. The processing is the icing on the cake.

Yes, there is a certain difference between post processing meant to enhance the appearance of an image without removing or adding pictorial elements, and processing to fabricate an image . At the least, in the latter case, I would expect the author to add an explanation adjunt to the title of the creation, so as to fairly advice potentially unaware spectators of the artificial nature of the photographic image they are contemplating . Especially with so-called wildlife photography I would expect this...

babalu, why? What does it matter if a wildlife photo is heavily doctored? The only place for strict rules regarding the use of post processing should be photo-journalism. Otherwise, it's art. Few would argue that a Renoir or Dali should be more realistic. All that matters is the relationship of the viewer to the image regardless of how the image was created.

@bgmonroethe difference is that a Renoir or a Dalí are being looked at in the knowledge that they are art, not photos of a scene . If a photo however is manipulated to induct awe for being a capture of a beautiful scene , and the pivotal word here is "capture" , and there is no hint towards the manipulation, it is arguably fraud . (same would be the case if a painter would exhibit a so-called photo-realistic painting that IS actually a photograph) . - and by the way, wildlife photos are a sort of photo-journalism, in my opinion.

babalu: so what of the instance that esteemed photographer Dorothea Lange removed part of the anatomy of "Migrant Mother". Lange doctored this image in the enlarger phase. Should she be stripped of her standing as one of the most influential American documentary photographers because she removed a thumb she considered extraneous? A great many photojournalists have partially staged or altered imagery. It's a question. I'm not looking to pick a fight. As someone who does photography most often within the strict controls of a studio, I can appreciate some latitude granted in the field, within limits. Bodies in civil war photos were repositioned, tenament occupants brought closer to account for the angle of view of lenses. I'm not excusing it. It does create potential problems relating photography to a wider journalistic ethos. But, in the case of Lange as just one example, some latitude for the strictest adherence to literal veracity in the image, certainly did not undermine her ability to bring a collective reality to the images.

In the interest of fair disclosure, much of my art deals with the slippery or sticky business of representation. I've spent a better part of two decades presenting an argument that photography is largely a reality removed from the "real". So I do perhaps have some bias against those things claiming complete objectivity.

b craw,I applaud your comments here, including those below and the last one replying to mine. I appreciate any point of view that is presented in a civil and eloquent manner. To the point of cosmetic changes in the interest of the overall appearance of a photo , as long as the changes do not affect the general appearance of authenticity, and, more important, do not convey an entirely different reality from what was in front of the lens, it is certainly part of the leniency granted to a photographer. All great works of art are a result of patient and painstaking adjustments by the artist, and that would include photography. But there must be a limit to this. In my opinion, changing the reality to attain admiration for an alleged photographic capture of a reality which in this form never existed is crossing this limit.

Yes, I am open to any exchange of ideas. Especially interesting to me is your concept of a photographic reality hovering above the true uncaptured reality (which actually would not exist if it were not for some media capturing it) ..

I'm all for a QI over IQ if you get my pixel peeping drift, and as said, most of these show lots of manipulation. Generally I'm fine with 'shopping as long as the image remains very close to what could have been SOOC. Having said that and noting the size of images offered for the contest and with no equipment details (without going back into the files) I'd like to see a contest like this won by a smart phone. That would bloody a few noses. There are a couple, or more, here that could well have been done on a phone.

All unrealistic? i don't believe so! I see there are shots that I believe even the RAW files doesn't look much different from what we see. Maybe some leve/contrast and saturation adjustment, even some of the photos does not have selective level/contrast/saturation adjustment.

Robert, I don't so much take issue with your assertion that photography should include truth, but do consider that much of photography that was once considered truth (as connected with notions of photojournalistic method), indeed have been proven otherwise. I am currently working on a project involving the Depression-Era photographer Dorothea Lange. She is unquestionably one of the most impactful documentarians of the twentieth century. But some of her work (not the majority) was staged, or otherwise altered elements for compositional or conceptual purposes. Both her and Walker Evans created much of what we know as the visual iconography of that time. In altering the literal reality of a scene, can it be argued that she, in fact, captured a larger essence of condition, itself a truth.

Much academic dialog exists about the potentials for truth in photography. This issue has been a very prominent theme since the 1970's - some proclaiming that the photo can never be a truth removed from the act of its creation; that is, never an objective reality, because the photographer is him/herself is always a subject to some degree, just as what is being pictured is. The very activity of framing, considering lighting, exposure dynamics, etc. are all decided upon/authored. Therefore the photo itself is never truth, but a construction based on the idea of representation and its limitations.

Also, if by truth or the real you mean simply "real" looking, then even that idea can get sticky. I, myself, see many applications of image processing as sort if chic mannerism, arbitrary. I think this has led to much of the vitriol involving heavy handed uses of HDR imagery. But, what we perceive as the realist possible image, is still often a degree of abstraction from the mechanics of our eyes. Is a black and white image, with otherwise normal appearing contrast and dynamic range, true enough.

What are you talking about? There are at least 13 images there about documentary and obviously are legit and not staged. There's one that's staged, and there's one candid.All of those images are realistic and true, it happened that they are all captured in great lighting and moment...

Richard, I'm not sure if you are directing your comment at me or the original poster. I only mentioned staging as an example of truth fudged by prominently regarded "documentary photographers", particularly early figures. That example was used to address an idea expressed in the original post. I never spoke of staging in reference to any of the shortlisted photos here.

As you can see, it's obvious that all of these shots are extremely manipulated. So this is CG challenge, not photography challenge!I'm hero, if I could take a super shot by proper selection of subject, frame, exposure, speed, Angle, ... right on the scene and submit my shot SOOC. Everyone can sit behind his laptop and render an artificial design better than these by "3D Max", "Photoshop", "Corel", ... even without a camera.At last, photographers should separate their ways from graphistes!

@AmirhosainD90 . . . you raise an interesting question. How much of today's photography is truly "straight out of the camera" vs manipulated in some way via software? Software indeed has gotten so clever that you can actually "make" a photo at this point. However, if you take a look at what modern day cameras can do in terms of altering an image even "within the camera itself" where does that leave us in terms of photographic purity . . . which you seem to be after. I think we have what we have.

Master Yoda, I disagree that you can "make" a photo in post processing, a picture is even good or it isn't. You can enhance or play down certain things but if the composition, focusing and exposure aren't there to start with you are just trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

Extremely manipulated?? Not even one of the images presented are manipulated. The colors and contrasts were just enhanced, but not manipulated.The way you talk about photography, it seems that you're just a guy with an camera and just use it for pixel-peeping.I advise you to get out and capture photographs more often in the field and in good lighting situation, great subjects, and using skills in photography in actual shoot, and not just sitting in front of your computer and bashing others' images as if you're the master of photography...

How about a contest to assess the aesthetic outcomes of a Holga images vs. those by DSLR's exceeding the $1500 mark? Might lead to some persons reconsidering perceived advantages of expensive gear, if only observing this criterion.

25 out of so many challenges is simply not enough. 100 entries like so many challenges would be much better. There could also be more than one category "best shot", but rather several categories, like people, portrait, landscape, wildlife, sport, macro..

This is a very strange selection of 25 photos out of so many challenges. 25 is a very very small number to begin with. Also, some of the photos are only nice, but by no means in any way special. I would argue, there are thousands of pictures in the challenges, that a more artistic and would represent much better entries on a short list than some. And there are three portraits, three macros, but only one real landscape, no real architecture, no sport, ... And finally, it is not clear by which criterion dpreview compiled this short list. Total number of votes, margin of winner against competition would at least honor the voting of so many participants. And I doubt, whether many of the 25 would have made into this list based on this.

Most of these are very nice photographs really, and worthy of exposure to public voting . I do have however some slight doubts about one of the entries, its author having been subject to a controverse about having used two accounts at the same time.I will not call names or point to the photo in question, but I trust that it's known.

I clicked on one photo, and got into slide show mode automatically. I was able to use < > to move thru the group, and I could drag a photo to the position of choice by picking near the middle top of the large view photo.

@Leandros . . . well in all fairness to Simon . . . this site is NOT a deomcracy. I too issued my own thoughts as to how I would have organized this contest but I realize this is NOT a community oriented website. Like so many others it is owned by others and provided for our enjoyment/entertainment. But never mistakenly think they are obligated to run things via some social community demand. Decisions have to be made and they don't always take a vote from us on those decisions. I think most of us accept this fact.

Yoda, you seem to completely misunderstand what a community oriented website is. It's not about ownership as set out in some legal document. It's about having a business model that depends on a community's goodwill, and I see that being carelessly thrown away time and again by the DPR team. If you're in doubt about the community nature of the website, maybe ask them to disable the forums for a few months and see if amazon doesn't then think to shut them down. Not going to happen though, is it? They seem to have a basic understanding of how the site works, but not much beyond that. That's why they can't attract a younger audience.

Well Leandros I guess we just have to agree to disagree. This site is one of the most popular photography sites in existence and people seem to like it the way it is. Is it perfect? Nope. Show me a site that is. The beauty of it is you are indeed free to exit any time. We will all still be here enjoying what has been provided. Perhaps you can create a better site. It's sad that you think the DPR team has time and time again thrown away the "community goodwill" (your words). I think that's utter dribble. Clearly, you're not happy here and the easiest way to remedy that is . . . leave. Problem solved huh?

Leandros, here is one in the community that thinks you are painting the issue too broadly, and slipping into rhetorical exaggeration. But I do appreciate criticism and the idea that DPR have the best dialog possible with its audience.

Yoda, that is a very lazy way out of having one's incompetence flagged up - to suggest for the other party to just leave, in hopes that this will cover up one's own argumentative weaknesses. It seems that nobody is willing to do more than shrug at the very specific criticisms I've made. FWIW, the feedback forum is full of unresolved issues. I suspect you never experienced for yourself that if no criticism is made, things won't improve. That's definitely a way of NOT being creative, if that's a notion that remotely appeals to you.

Alright, I voted . . . but I kind of felt bad about it. I realize you're trying to get one ring to rule all other rings. But I just think it would have been fairer to select the best of a couple of categories of images. Trying to say a given macro is "better" than a landscape or a portrait just doesn't seem fair to the photographers. In other words, compare apples to apples. Still, they are all very good images and I wish them all luck.

Oh, I don't know. I don't judge pictures on technical considerations but by how long they hold me and how often I go back to them. This works for all varieties of image - and in fact it does judge the technical merit, since all the "rules" aim at making captivating photos.

John, I entirely agree with you!Master Yoda, in general you are right; in many big contests there are different genres or groups. But how many genres you would define here at dpr? And how would you take a well deserved challenge win into account, when the win was based not only on the nice foto, but additionaly in particular in connection with a creative interpretation of a challenge theme? This aspect is also not - and could not be - covered with the dpr preselection.

John, I'm not so much concerned with structural distinctions like Animal/Portrait/Landscape/Macro (although that might merit consideration); my overarching concern as an educator is that work, not perhaps providing an obvious or immediate visual gratification, but perhaps very sophisticated and rewarding conceptually with lengthier consideration, tends to receive few accolades. I realize that this site serves a very broad audience. But a great deal of the most impactful and important images in photography's history are, upon first impression, confounding and challenging. But the ultimate rewards are potentially more profound to the viewer. It does frustrate me that so many photographers, especially younger ones, are seeing a rather one-dimensional appreciation of the medium (I acknowledge that that might come off to some as a bit too much of a generalization).

Some very nice images--but none are very subtle, and the best ones are somewhat derivative (as an example the shaft of light on the sole person in church reminds one of the famous picture in NYC grand central station w/ shaft of light on them--the photographer name escapes me now); and none are worthy of the accolade of "being the best."

Latest in-depth reviews

The Hasselblad X1D-50c is a mirrorless medium format camera from one of the most famous camera brands of the 20th century. Following a series of feature-enhancing firmware updates we've been able to complete our review.

The LG G7 ThinQ is a flagship device with a dual camera that departs from the norm: rather than the usual tele/wide combo, it offers wide and super-wide angle lenses. While it doesn't produce class-leading image quality, it's a solid option if you favor wide-angle shooting.

The Fujifilm X-T100 is the company's least expensive X-series camera to include an electronic viewfinder. It shares most of its guts with the entry-level X-A5, including its hybrid AF system and 24MP sensor and, unfortunately, its 4K/15p video mode.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at seven current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for a parent? The best cameras for shooting kids and family must have fast autofocus, good low-light image quality and great video. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for parents, and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

Alex and Kathryn are photographers, friends and Tokyo residents who love exploring Japan's hidden cultural treasures. They each brought a Canon EOS M50 on a recent trip starting in bustling Tokyo and ending in the peaceful riverside town of Gujo Hachiman.

Canon's latest 70-200mm F4L comes with a five stops of image stabilization, a new coat of paint and impressive sharpness. We've been shooting with our copy for several weeks now - see how it stacks up in our sample gallery.

Special 4K and 6K Photo modes may be one of the most under-appreciated features on recent cameras. In this week's episode, Chris and Jordan take a closer look at these modes and explain why – and when – you'll be glad to have them on your camera.

Ten years ago this month Panasonic and Olympus announced a new concept called Micro Four Thirds. We're now on the brink of full-frame mirrorless from at least one major player, so perhaps it's a good time to take a look back at where it all started – and how far we've come.

At a high-profile launch event in New York, Samsung took the wraps off its next Note device. The Galaxy Note 9 borrows the S9+'s 12MP dual-aperture dual-cam, with OIS in both cameras and an emphasis on AI-enhanced shooting modes.

One of the most keenly-awaited lenses for a while, the new Pentax D FA* 50mm F1.4 is finally here, and we've been using it for a few days. In this article, we're updating our initial impressions on the basis of our recent shooting with the K-1 II.

This week we take a look at one of the most unusual optics we've seen for quite a while. The Laowa 24mm F14 Macro Probe lens may look like something out of a science fiction movie, but as Chris and Jordan discover, it opens the door to some pretty cool photo opportunities.

GoPro has revealed its Q2 2018 financial results, boasting a massive 40% quarter-over-quarter revenue increase to $283 million and net loss of $32 million, which the company says is a 51% sequential improvement.